山东省菏泽市人民政府办公室


菏泽市人民政府办公室关于印发《菏泽市市长公开电话工作规则》的通知

菏政办发〔2003〕13号





　　现将《菏泽市市长公开电话工作规则》印发给你们,望认真遵照执行。

二○○三年三月六日　　

菏泽市市长公开电话工作规则

　　为办理好市长公开电话工作,充分发挥其政府与人民群众联系的纽带、桥梁作用,逐步实现市长公开电话办理工作的制度化、规范化、程序化,特制定本规则。
　　一、工作目标
　　把市长公开电话作为政府与人民群众联系、沟通的桥梁和纽带,充分发挥市政府的窗口作用和市政府值班室综合信息中心、指挥调度中心、全天候政务服务中心的作用,为领导服务,为基层和人民群众服务,方便群众参政议政,促进社会稳定和经济发展。
　　二、工作性质
　　市政府值班室受理市长公开电话是受市长委托,负责办理市长公开电话日常事务,是代表市政府领导处理群众来话工作的,是政府与群众联系的重要渠道。
　　三、工作任务
　　受理群众和基层单位的来话,广泛听取意见和建议,筛选传达重要社情民意,为领导决策提供依据;自觉接受和支持、引导社会监督,协调解决各类矛盾和问题,宣传、解释党和政府的方针政策,积极为人民群众排忧解难,进一步拓宽政府与人民群众的联系渠道,转变机关作风,改进和加强政府工作,更好地为领导、为基层、为群众服务。
　　四、受理范围
　　市长公开电话主要受理群众和基层单位通过电话反映的下列问题:
　　对政府工作及政府工作人员的批评、意见和建议;
　　对政府部门及工作人员的批评、意见和建议;
　　对社会生活中发生的属于政府解决的有关问题。
　　对党群部门和司法机关工作的批评、意见和建议,说服来话人向有关部门反映;对群众来信、来访,移交信访部门处理。
　　五、工作职责
　　根据市政府领导授权,市长公开电话处理问题具有权威性。对群众来话反映的问题应做到件件有着落,事事有回音。
　　(一)整理记录。按《市长公开电话受理登记簿》填写受话原始记录,写清楚来话人姓名、地址、工作单位、联系电话、来话时间、主要内容等。填写内容要简明扼要,不遗不漏,客观真实。
　　(二)分类处理。对受理的群众来话进行答复、解释和筛选、分析、核实,分类处理。
　　1、对来话人提出的问题,属于政策明确的,当即予以答复。
　　2、一般性的属于有关部门、单位职责范围内的问题,填写《市长公开电话处理单》,值班室主任签批后交有关部门、单位限7日内办结。
　　3、较重要的紧急问题,需多个部门协同处理的,立即填写《市长公开电话处理单》,呈报有关领导批办,指定有关部门牵头办理。
　　4、每天向市政府主要领导同志报告当天市长公开电话接办情况。定期对群众来话进行综合分析,找出带有倾向性、苗头性的问题及重要社情民意,写成书面材料供市政府领导参阅。
　　(三)督促协调。根据市政府领导指示和工作需要,督促有关部门、单位认真办理承办事项。
　　1、责成并督促有关部门限期完成承办事项,并对处理不当的,令责任部门重新复查办理。
　　2、对市政府领导批示交办及市长公开电话转办的问题进行重点跟踪督办,确保问题按期办结。
　　3、对市长公开电话的办理情况进行定期通报,工作好的部门、单位给予表扬,工作差的予以通报批评。
　　(四)反馈宣传。区别不同情况,对办理结果予以反馈或公布,增强办理工作的透明度。
　　1、有结果的利用电话或书面形式将办理结果直接答复主要来话人,必要时请办理部门或单位向来话人面复。
　　2、凡经市政府领导批示的问题,办结后,立即电话或书面向领导反馈处理结果。
　　3、对群众普遍关心和影响较大的问题及时通过新闻媒体向社会公布。主要办好在《菏泽日报》、《牡丹晚报》、广播电台开设的“市长公开电话对你说”、“市长回电”专栏,反映群众要求、答复群众来话的办理情况,宣传解释有关政策,法规等。
　　(五)立卷归档,做好市长公开电话书面材料的管理工作。对市长公开电话记录,领导批示件,综合分析材料,参阅材料等有价值的材料立卷归档,交文秘科保管。
　　六、工作原则
　　(一)政府行为的原则。市政府各部门和各县区政府的主要领导必须亲自抓市长公开电话的办理工作,对这项工作负总责,亲自审批或办理涉及全市经济建设大局和群众反映强烈的重点、难点和热点问题,严格落实责任制,建立健全内部工作机制,把市长公开电话工作作为转变政府职能,提高工作效率,密切联系群众的一件实事来抓。
　　(二)分级负责、归口办理的原则。对来话人反映的问题,属政府有关部门职责范围内的,应告知来话人先向有关部门反映;对应由有关部门解决而没有得到及时解决,造成群众重复来话的,市长公开电话应通报批评,并责成从速解决。各承办单位对上一级交办的事项不应推诿扯皮或将矛盾上交。否则视情节轻重予以通报批评或追究主要领导责任。
　　(三)文明服务的原则。公开电话值班员接话要使用文明礼貌用语,实行两项服务承诺,一是电话铃响三声必起机,首句话为“您好,市长公开电话,请讲。”末句话为“你看这样好吗,谢谢,再见”,二是讲话和气、准确、简明,态度热情、和蔼、大方,严禁顶撞和发火,对来话者一视同仁。
　　(四)求真务实的原则。要尊重事实、讲求实效,客观、真实、公正地记录和反映群众来话。
　　(五)高效、快捷的原则。对群众反映的问题,凡属有条件解决的应及时给予解决;条件暂不具备的要督促有关部门积极创造条件争取早日解决;超越政策规定及受理范围或提出不合理要求的以及因客观原因确实不能解决的,要向来话人作出认真、耐心的解释,讲明道理,说服疏导,求得群众理解。
　　七、工作要求
　　(一)市政府值班室要认真履行市长公开电话的各项工作职责,统一指挥、调度。各县区政府、政府各部门是责任保证部门和执行处置部门,在处理群众来话投诉问题时,承办部门、单位要树立大局意识,服从指挥调度,需要哪级领导出面,必须全力配合,确保政令畅通。
　　(二)要树立“群众第一”、群众反映的问题“件件无小事”的观念,以人民群众满意为目标,坚持“上为政府分忧、下为百姓解难”的工作出发点,不断提高来话办理质量,减少二次投诉和越级投诉,及时准确地反映社情民意,传达群众呼声。
　　八、工作制度
　　(一)值班制度。市长公开电话实行专人昼夜24小时值班制及“首问”负责制。值班员当班听接问题,全程负责办理直至办结。严禁值班人员脱岗或替岗,杜绝贻时、误事现象(参照值班工作规程和值班员工作细则)。
　　(二)工作报告制度。除重要情况立即报告外,值班室每月月底将本月受话情况、办理情况进行小结,全面分析,形成书面材料,报市政府领导;半年和全年要进行全面总结。
　　(三)例会和定期通报制度。每季度召开一次例会,每年召开一次工作会议,通报情况,交流经验,总结部署工作。
　　(四)保密制度。值班人员要遵守保密制度,不该讲的不准乱讲,特别是对检举揭发问题的,要为来话人保守秘密,防止出现打击报复现象。
　　(五)学习制度。经常组织从事公开电话工作的人员进行政治、业务学习,熟悉、掌握党和国家的方针、政策,特别要教育工作人员树立全心全意为人民服务的思想,尽职尽责,忠于职守,维护政府良好形象。
　　九、工作程序
　　(一)接办程序
　　1.认真受理来话人反映的意见和要求,准确记录,要点清楚,整理完备。
　　2.受理电话要认真判断,区别情况,及时向领导报告,一般应报秘书长、副秘书长或主任批示,必要时直报市长、副市长批示。需立即办理的事项在权限允许时,也可直接转有关部门办理,并跟踪督办;不能立即办理的,应告知来话人已作记录,及时交有关部门办理。
　　3.属于咨询市政府有关政策、规范性文件和单行条例等内容的来话,政策明确规定的,应当即给来话人作出负责的解释或答复。专业性较强的问题,可由受理人员通过相关单位查询清楚后办理、反馈,不清楚的协调有关部门解决。
　　4.带有普遍性、指导性的建议和意见,要及时整理,送有关领导和部门参考。
　　5.重大紧急事项在做好应急处理的同时,应立即逐级上报,并根据领导批示,及时处理。编发《市长公开电话专讯》,及时向领导提供市长公开电话反映的重要社情民意,重要问题的处理结果和政策意见及建议。
　　(二)督办程序
　　1.承办单位接到群众反映的急、险事件应当即办理,问题较复杂的也应在7日内办结,特殊超时限的,须经有关领导批准。同时提前向群众说明,处理完毕后及时反馈。
　　2.对重大事项的办理,市长公开电话应与承办单位及时保持联系,承办单位应将办理情况随时向市长公开电话反馈。对敷衍塞责或处理不当的,责成承办单位重新办理,限时答复。
　　3.对有关部门、单位在办理过程中发生处理意见不一致或责任交叉的,按政府领导批示意见,责成有关部门限期办复。必要时按领导意见做出裁决。
　　4.对群众反映的问题,每周进行综合分析整理,有领导批示的,整理反馈办理结果。
　　(三)办结回复
　　1.利用电话或书面形式将办理结果直接答复主要来话人,必要时请办理部门或单位向来话人面复。
　　2.对群众普遍关心的问题的办理情况,应通过新闻媒体向群众公布。
　　3.对有影响的重大热点问题进行回访,以检查办理工作的质量和实际效果。
　　4.编发《今日市长公开电话接办情况通报》,发市长、秘书长。

二○○三年三月六日　　



Chapter VII
Special Rules for Anti-dumping Disputes

OUTLINE

Section One Recourse of Anti-dumping Disputes to the DSB
I Introduction
II Sufficiency of Panel Request under the AD Agreement
(i) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement
(ii) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement
(iii) A Summary Guiding
III General Legal Basis for Claims against Legislation as Such
IV Special Rules for Claims against Anti-dumping Legislation as Such
(i) Introduction
（ii）General Legal Basis under Art. 17 of the AD Agreement
(iii) Understanding of Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement
(iv) Extensive Basis in Context
(v) A Summary
Section Two Ad hoc Standard of Review for Anti-dumping Disputes
I Introduction
II Special Standard of Review under the AD Agreement: in General
(i) Ad hoc Approaches to Domestic Determination: Art. 17.6
(ii) Relationship between Art. 11 of the DSU and Art. 17.6 of the AD Agreement
(iii) A Summary Guiding
III Scope of Review of Fact-findings: Art. 17.5(ii) of the AD Agreement
(i)Overview of the GATT Practice
(ii)Concerned Rulings in Reports Issued by WTO Panels
(iii)Tentative Remarks: Guidance from the Appellate Body





Section One
Recourse of Anti-dumping Disputes to the DSB

I Introduction
Compared to the legally fragmented previous GATT dispute settlement system, the new WTO dispute settlement system is an integrated system with much broader jurisdiction and less scope for “rule shopping” and “forum shopping”. However, according to Art. 1.2 of the DSU which states in part that, “[t]he rules and procedures of this Understanding shall apply subject to such special or additional rules and procedures on dispute settlement contained in the covered agreements as are identified in Appendix 2 to this Understanding”, many covered agreements under the WTO jurisdiction continue to include special dispute settlement rules and procedures. Such special rules and procedures are listed in Appendix 2 to the DSU. And in this chapter, we will focus on such special dispute settlement rules concerning anti-dumping disputes, i.e. Arts. 17.4 through 17.7 of the Anti-dumping Agreement (‘the AD Agreement’).
An analysis of the DSB practice suggests a separate contribution of this chapter to this book, merited by dispute settlement proceedings in the anti-dumping field. In this chapter, the author focuses on the two main issues repeatedly raised, as preliminary or procedural issues, during dispute settlement regarding anti-dumping. One is the issue of recourse of anti-dumping disputes to the DSB, which deals mainly with Arts. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement; the other one is the issue of standard of review in anti-dumping areas, which runs most on Art. 17.6, including Art. 17.5(ii), of the AD Agreement. And in this section we will focus on the first one. In this respect, Arts. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement states:

“17.4 If the Member that requested consultations considers that the consultations pursuant to paragraph 3 have failed to achieve a mutually agreed solution, and if final action has been taken by the administering authorities of the importing Member to levy definitive anti-dumping duties or to accept price undertakings, it may refer the matter to the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”). When a provisional measure has a significant impact and the Member that requested consultations considers that the measure was taken contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 7, that Member may also refer such matter to the DSB.
17.5 The DSB shall, at the request of complaining party, establish a panel to examine the matter based upon:
(i) a written statement of the Member making the request indicating how a benefit accruing to it, directly or indirectly, under this Agreement has been nullified or impaired, or that the achieving of the objectives of the Agreement is being impeded, and
(ii) …”
II Sufficiency of Panel Request under the AD Agreement
Generally, as noted in previously, it is only where the provisions of the DSU and the special or additional rules and procedures of a covered agreement cannot be read as complementing each other that the special or additional provisions are to prevail. A special or additional provision should only be found to prevail over a provision of the DSU in a situation where adherence to the one provision will lead to a violation of the other provision, that is, in the case of a conflict between them. Then the author means to get down to the issue of whether these provisions cited above limits panel request under the AD Agreement to somehow other than those required by Art. 6.2 of the DSU.
In Mexico-HFCS (DS132), the dispute involves the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping measure by the Mexican Ministry of Trade and Industrial Development (SECOFI) on imports of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from the United States. Mexico argues that the United States' request for establishment of this Panel is not consistent with the requirements of Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement, and therefore argues that the Panel must terminate the proceeding without reaching the substance of the United States' claims.
(i) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement
In considering the alleged failure to assert claims under Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement, the Panel rules that: 1
“[W]e note first that the Appellate Body has stated that Article 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement are complementary and should be applied together in disputes under the AD Agreement. It has further stated that: ‘the word “matter” has the same meaning in Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as it has in Article 7 of the DSU. It consists of two element: The specific “measure” and the “claims” relating to it, both of which must be properly identified in a panel request as required by Article 6.2 of the DSU.’